SPE 57285
Feasibility of Downhole Oil/Water Separation and Reinjection in the GOM
S. Suárez, SPE,PDVSA-Intevep , and A. Abou-Sayed, SPE, ADVANTEK
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery
Conference to be held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25–26 October 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A study of the feasibility and applicability of Downhole
Oil/Water Separation and Reinjection Systems (DOWS) for
the GOM is presented. According to reservoir simulations, oil
production increases when applying DOWS. Also, an
additional pressure boost at the exit of DOWS is enough to
lift the separated volume to surface. In contrast, without
DOWS, it is necessary to rely on artificial lift to achieve well
production. Targeting reasonable injectivity can provide
commercial and available equipment capable of injecting
water above the injection zone.
Introduction
It is well-known that water production rates have increased
rapidly in recent years while oil production rates have lagged.
In 1996, the UK and Gulf of Mexico oil sectors produced
about 1.5 barrels of water for each barrel of oil (1) .
In 1998, about 3 barrels of water for each barrel of oil were
produced by Mobil, BP, Texaco and Chevron. In absolute
terms, this translates to about 5 million barrels of oil produced
and 17 million barrels of water per day. The bottom line is that
with this average rate of water produced and all estimated
costs included, the total cost of treating the water is estimated
to be at least $0.50/bbl. Therefore, the total water bill for the
companies averaged $ 8.5 million per day for 1998. Also, as
water encroachment and reduced wellhead pressures take their
toll in increased lifting costs, profitable fields become
marginal. New discoveries may be left unexploited due to the
capital and operating costs of lifting, treating and disposing of
produced water. For the reasons mentioned above, produced
water contributes to high operating expenses and is a major
source of environmental concern for oil producers. Downhole
oil/water separation and reinjection systems (DOWS) have
demonstrated significant potential to alleviate these problems.
Several DOWS have been successfully applied in a number of
onshore and offshore wells. In this work, the selection process
for candidate wells and installation of downhole oil/water
systems are discussed. The injection zone is assumed to be
located below the producing interval. The main study
objectives are to determine:
• the highest inflow volume and optimum DOWS depth
location considering the limitations of present technology
• additional potential drawdown available after DOWS
implementation
• residual pressure at the exit of DOWS to lift the separated
volume to surface
• minimal reservoir pressure sufficient to lift the separated
volume from DOWS to surface
• artificial lift requirement as function of inflow watercut
• viability of DOWS as a solution to water constraints in
the Field
Economic Justification for Downhole Separation
1. Increased Oil Production (5):
Increased oil production can be achieved in a number of ways
most of which are made possible by the reduction in loading
on existing water handling and injection systems resulting
from employment of DOWS. If, for example, one or more
wells in a field are not operating at maximum recommended
draw-down because the water handling facilities are fully
loaded, installation of DOWS will allow increased draw-down
and production. If, on the other hand, the wells are already
producing at maximum rates, the reduction in water to surface
can allow shut-in wells to be returned to production. Either
way, increased oil is generated. There are a few wells or fields
that are limited by electric power and therefore production is
restricted by available horsepower. In these cases, increased
oil production can be generated if the required horsepower to
inject the water is less than the horsepower to lift the water to
surface.
2. Power Consumption (1): Reservoirs with pressure
support will undergo a decline in oil production as the water
cut increases. In many cases artificial lift is required and
therefore, a significant portion of the energy goes towards
lifting the water to surface. It can be more efficient to separate
and dispose of the water downhole. With the right injection
zone, power savings of up to 50% over conventional ESP lift
2 S. SUAREZ AND A. ABOU-SAYED
can be achieved. Additionally, subsea completions tied back to
a processing facility will be cold and require heating. This too
adds to the energy consumption of processing the liquid
compared to DOWS.
3. Chemical Usage (1): Increased water production leads
to higher chemical consumption rates. Use of demulsifiers,
corrosion and scale inhibitors, as well as methanol or glycol
additions to prevent hydrate formations will be drastically
reduced or eliminated with DOWS.
4. Gathering and Facility Costs(2): Increasing water
flows require increasingly larger facilities to handle them so
frequent facility and pipeline upgrades or line looping are
required. If the facilities aren’t increased in size, the total fluid
capacity will be constrained. Since water will continue to
increase, the oil throughput will rapidly decline. Generally,
DOWS should be able to reduce water production down to a
WOR of 1-3 (water cuts 50-75%) depending on how
consistent the operation is and what type of pump system is
used.
5. Disposal Systems (2): The design of disposal systems
is generally a case of balancing pump horsepower vs. the cost
of a disposal well. Disposal wells and high pressure disposal
lines are expensive capital additions while pumps are usually
less expensive for installation but increase operating costs for
power.
6. Disposal Well Allocation (2): An issue with the use
of more disposal wells is that usually, the source for disposal
wells are producing wells with the highest WOR’s. Converting
these wells to disposal reduces oil production, which is
sometimes a hidden cost associated with disposal system
expansion. With DOWS, fewer dedicated water disposal wells
are required for fields and more wells can remain as
producers.
7. Environmental Cost (1, 9): As the amount of water cut
increases, so does the environmental impact. Early
implementation of DOWS could mitigate the environmental
risk associated with spills at the surface and subsurface
contamination. The process reduces the volume of fluids
traveling past surface aquifers as they are pumped to surface
and reinjected and minimizes the risk to potable water sources,
particularly in disposal wells.
8. Safety (1): Removal of 95% of the aqueous phase under
high pressure in the wellbore can reduce the concentration of
acid gases including CO2 and H2S in the off gas from the
crude stabilization process. DOWS can also alleviate personal
safety concerns.
9. Formation (5): Reinjection into the producing
formation provides the following benefits: pressure
maintenance of the producing formation, potential sweeping of
additional oil out of bypassed, isolated or underlying portions
of the formation and maintaining injection pressures at a
relatively consistent differential to the producing pressure.
This facilitates equipment design and helps eliminate any
concerns about measuring interzone fluid transfers which
might require downhole measurement instrumentation.
10. Cost of DOWS Installation (2): This is very
dependent on system capacity, pressure requirements, well
SPE 57285
depth, well recompletion requirements and the uniqueness of
the application. Another variable is time dependent. In that the
systems are still new, the number of installations to date is not
high enough to allow the economics of scale to come into
effect. The designs are still undergoing the process of
optimization. Consequently, a recommended method is for
potential users of the technology to estimate their workover
costs with the minimum requirement being to install a packer
to isolate the disposal and injection zones. Also, to open up
and treat the injection zone as would be done for a standard
water injection well. Equipment costs will then be dependent
on the volumes and pressures required and the cost of the
hydrocyclone itself. An installation that is fairly
straightforward is where lifting horsepower can be saved by
installing DOWS. This could be similar in cost to a
conventional system of similar capacity pumping all fluids to
surface. In other applications where deepening the well is
required or where injectivities are low and the well is deep,
costs can be considerably higher.
11. New Developments (5): For new field developments,
the economics of DOWS utilization would be greatly
influenced by savings in planned facility costs. Less water
handling translates to a smaller, more compact surface facility
with corresponding capital cost savings. In particular,
reduction in the number of disposal wells required would save
both capital and operating costs for the field.
DOWS Systems -- Basic types and Configurations
There are a variety of downhole separation systems in use
today including systems for gas/liquid, liquid/solid, and
liquid/liquid separation (5). A range of separator types is
employed including, in some cases, using the wellbore itself as
a gravity separator. Hydrocyclones are widely used for
oil/water separation at the surface and downhole. Due to their
high efficiency (6), the oil content of the disposal water stream
will generally be limited to less than 200 ppm.
Another proposed means of enhancing mechanical separators
(centrifuges) is proposed instead of or in addition to passive
hydrocyclone separators. In surface use, it is possible to
separate oil, water, gas and solids with a simple rotating
separator to produce both clean water and dry oil. At the
moment, there are no rotating oil water separators
commercially available for downhole use.
Static hydrocyclones and conventional ESP:
This system was developed by CFER (1) in 1994 and now
there are many successful commercial installations. Based on
current technology limitations, a single hydrocyclone tube
could operate in the range of 500-2,000 BPD inlet flow rate
with corresponding pressure drops of 50- 200 psi inlet to water
side. For 5-1/2” cased wells, it is recommended to use a 4-
1/2” separator assembly holding up to 2 hydrocyclone tubes
with a capacity of 500- 4000 BFPD. For 7” cased wells, the
recommended equipment is a 5-1/2” separator assembly (with
6” OD collars) holding up to 5 hydrocyclone tubes with
capacity of 3,000-10,000 BFPD. For 9-5/8” cased wells, the
3 FEASIBILITY OF DOWNHOLE OIL/WATER SEPARATION AND REINJECTION IN THE GOM
recommendation is for a 7-5/8” separator assembly holding up
to 10 hydrocyclone tubes with capacity of 7,500- 20,000
BFPD.
Given the well geometry of the previous wells using DOWS,
the maximum recommended depth to install DOWS is 12,000
feet. Regarding configurations, following are two alternative
systems listed with their advantages and disadvantages:
Push Through Systems – This is the most common application
and covers those systems where the production fluid enters the
pump prior to the separator. The pump is sized to dispose the
water into the given injection zone while the oil has a residual
pressure that may or may not be sufficient to bring flow to
surface. If there is insufficient pressure, the oil stream feeds a
second oil booster pump driven by the same motor. Use of a
second pump with its own motor for the oil production is
possible but makes the installation considerably more complex
(two cables, etc.).
Disadvantage: risk of poor separation due to formation of
smaller oil droplet size caused by the feed pump. Pump
hydraulic efficiency and chemistry affect this risk.
Pull Through Systems - In this case, the production fluids
enter the separator prior to any pumping such that separator
outlets are pumped. Again, where the oil has insufficient
pressure to flow to surface, a second pump is employed.
Disadvantage: risk of poor separation due to the free gas
and/or poor homogeneity of the inlet mixture. There are
designs that include a mixer at the inlet to the separator in
order to overcome this risk.
Static hydrocyclones and PCP (5): These systems using
downhole progressing cavity pumps (PCP) have also been
employed. The driver for a PCP is normally an electric motor
located at the surface connected to the pump via a drive shaft.
As with an ESP driven system, one or two pumps can be
employed. It is also possible to drive downhole PCPs with
downhole electric motors. PCPs have advantages over ESPs
where emulsions and/or solids production are problems. The
primary limitations of PCPs for use in DOWS is their
capacity. PCPs are typically installed with capacities of 500 to
2000 bpd.
Potential Applications for DOWS (7)
Numerous applications for DOWS have been conceived.
Several of these are discussed below:
Injection Below The Producing Horizon:
All of the units installed to date have been this type of
application. The disposal stream has been injected into both
separate disposal zones and the lower interval of the producing
reservoir. One innovative operator has re-injected produced
water into the producing reservoir below a permeability
barrier, thereby performing pressure maintenance without
crossflowing into the producing zone. The benefits of this type
of system are reduced disposal costs and increased oil
production.
Crossflooding: Another potential application for DOWS is
crossflooding. Figure 6 illustrates this concept. Potentially,
SPE 57285
two zones could be flooded without surfacing most of the
water.
Horizontal Well Flooding: Development of DOWS can
also be applied in conjunction with horizontal and multilateral
well technologies. This application has the potential to reduce
field development costs as well as power consumption.
Reverse Coning Application: Another potential application
is the reduction of water invasion into the oil zone in coning-
prone reservoirs. The benefits of such a system would be
reduced power consumption, less bypassed oil and fewer wells
required for field development.
Field Description of a Candidate Well
The field is a Medium (200-1,000 mmb) Oil Reservoir
building to plateau. It has one accumulation located offshore
in deep water (2933 ft). The reservoir is deep (> 10,000 ft ss)
and composed of sandstone. It is low temperature (<200
degrees F) and overpressured (3,000-5,000 psia above
hydrostatic), containing a medium API gravity (25-35 deg
API), medium viscosity oil (0.75 - 5 cp) and (500 – 1,000
scf/bbl) GOR.
It is produced by natural depletion with water injection for
secondary recovery using a floating production system. The
oil recovery is moderate (30 - 45%). Recovery of 30% is
expected under natural depletion and 37% with waterflooding.
Individual reservoirs will have higher recovery. There are
seven major pay zones with an oil column up to 8,000 ft thick.
The trap is stratigraphic with the reservoir having a medium
net to gross (0.4 - 0.7). It is a high porosity (>25%), high
permeability (> 500 md) deep marine sandstone (Sand rich
fan).
The turbidite sandstones were deposited in an intraslope salt
withdrawal basin. The reservoir has uncertain horizontal
permeability anisotropy, strong layering, medium effective
Kv/Kh (.001-.1) and variable reservoir connectivity.
Criteria for Candidate Selection
Several criteria were considered in the candidate selection
process including:
• Only wells with a water cut of greater than 60% were
considered (6)
• Avoidance of wells with a history of sand production,
asphaltine, scale or emulsification problems (6)
• Current rates and potential for productivity gains through
increased drawdown and for increased reserve capture (6)
• Cement integrity and disposal zone isolation (6)
• Well recompletion requirements (e.g. “overhole”
available, was sufficient casing open below the
producing horizon to access the disposal zone without
drilling) (6)
• Injection zone available in the well. Could produced water
be reinjected near the producing formation (need of
permeability barriers between the injection and production
interval) (6)
• 7” casing was desired to maximize the production rate
4 S. SUAREZ AND A. ABOU-SAYED
• Avoidance of wells with high GOR’s (8). Free gas at inlet
must not exceed 10%.
• Wells with oil gravity greater than 20° API.
The following information is also recommended :
• Fluid data (oil gravity, spec. water gravity, GOR, bubble
point, fluid viscosity, actual water cut produced)
• Well data (production history, WOR versus cumulative
oil, casing diameter, perforation depth, productivity and
injectivity index, well head pressure)
• Logs - open hole compensated neutron-density (could
indicate channel sand reservoir depth and the presence of
shale barriers or distinct oil/water contacts)
• Reservoir data (depth, production zone thickness,
porosity, permeability, initial and actual reservoir pressure,
reservoir temperature).
Results
Figure 1 shows a rough draft of the well completion and the
different parameters involved in the selection of the
equipment.
Simulations with PROSPER (fig 2), assuming constant
reservoir and wellhead pressure and separation efficiency
indicate that DOWS could provide up 1900 psi of additional
drawdown (the largest increase occurring at higher inflow
watercut). This additional pressure boost at the exit of DOWS
is enough to lift the separated volume to surface. In contrast,
without DOWS, it is necessary to rely on artificial lift to
produce the well for inflow watercut higher than 70%.
Another finding is that the original reservoir pressure could be
depleted to 6,420 psi (fig 3) enabling increased recovery factor
and, at the same time, enough pressure to lift the separated
volume from DOWS to the surface for inflow watercut in the
range of 60-90% (Fig 4.).
Successful implementation of DOWS requires accurate
information about the injection zone. For instance, the
calculation (fig 5) for 6,420 psi formation pressure (production
zone) requires substantial horsepower (DP = 9000 psi @ 90%
w) to inject water above the injection zone fracture gradient.
For this reason, it was assumed that the injectivity into the
rock matrix could be sustained over long periods and there
would be no need to fracture the formation. Furthermore, the
target injectivity of 5 BPD/psi demands reasonable
horsepower (DP= 2700 psi @ 90%w) with the largest increase
occurring for higher watercut.
Conclusions
- DOWS could be a viable solution to water constraints in
the GOM
- Extensive experience gained at CENTRILIFT&REDA is
enough to support field installations
SPE 57285
- Hydrocyclone separation is a proven and successful
technology
- Further development of DOWS for high flow rates and
low water-cut applications is required.
Nomenclature
PDHS = pressure at the hydroseparator, psi
BHFP = bottom hole fluid pressure, psi
THP = tubing head pressure, psi
TVD = true vertical depth; feet
PE = equivalent pressure, psi
P = pressure, psi
Subscripts
ip = at the inlet of hydroseparator
ep = at the exit of hydroseparator
R = at the reservoir
inj = at the injection zone
H = at the hydroseparator
Acknowledgments
We thank Mr C.Shaw from Centrilift and Mr P.J. Schrenkel
from REDA , for valuable discussions about the topic.
References
1. Shaw C and Fox M., “Economics of downhole oil-water
separation: A case history and implications for the North
Sea”. SPE50618. 1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference
The Hague, The Netherlands,20-22 October 1998.
2. Peachey B.R., “The economics of downhole oi/water
separation”. 48Th Annual Technical. Meeting of the
Petroleum Society in Calagry, Alberta, Canada. June 8-11,
1997.
3. Peachey B.R., Solanki .S.C. and Piers Z.K. , “Downhole
oil/water separation moves into high gear”. JCPT July 1998,
Vol 37, No 7 Pag 34-41.
4. Verbeek P.H.J and Smeenk R.G., “Downhole separator
produces less water and more oil”. SPE 50617. 1998 SPE
European Petroleum Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, 20-22 October 1998.
5. Bowers B.E , Brownlee R.F and Schrenkel P.J.,
“Development of a downhole oil/water separation and
reinjection system for offshore application”. OTC 8865. OTC
Houston, Texas , 4-7 May 1998.
6. Matthews C.M , Chachula R. , Peachey B.R. and Solanki
S.C., “Application of downhole oil/water systems in the
Alliance Field”. SPE 35817. Third Int. Conference on HSE in
Oil&Gas - E&P , New Orleans , June 9-12 1996.
7. Schrenkel P.J., “Joint Industry Development of the
Downhole Oil Water Separation. System-Field Case Study”.
SPE 37453. Production Operations Symposium,
OklahomaCity, OK. 9-11 March 1997.
8. Peats, A and Schrenkel P., “Application of ESP Oil Water
Separation System in the Swan Hills Unit One Field –A”.
SPE 39079. SPE 1997, Electric Submersible Pump Worshop.
5 FEASIBILITY OF DOWNHOLE OIL/WATER SEPARATION AND REINJECTION IN THE GOM SPE 57285

9. Shaw C., “Downhole Oil - Water Separation

Technology”. Report Centrilift to Baker Hughes Company.
Claremore, OK 74017.
10. Asheim H., “Natural Downhole Separation and its Impact
on Production Performance”.SPE 50624. SPE 1998. European
Petroleum Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 20-22
October 1998.
11. Furlow W. and Schmidt V., “Production systems moving
subsea and downhole”. Offshore June 1998 (pg. 28-30).
12. Jackson T., “ESP moving to marginal production,
downhole separation”. Offshore. May 1998 (pg. 150).

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cp x 10* E – 03 = Pa.s
ft x 3.048 E – 01 = m
psi x 6.894 757 E – 00 = kPa
6 S. SUAREZ AND A. ABOU-SAYED SPE 57285

TVDH = 12000 feet

TVDR = 17840 feet

TVDinj = 18118 feet

Fig. 1
7 FEASIBILITY OF DOWNHOLE OIL/WATER SEPARATION AND REINJECTION IN THE GOM SPE 57285

9000

8500

8000

7500

Pressure(Psi)
7000

6500

6000

5500

5000
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
PEthp
BHFPf Fig. 2- Q=10000 BPD / THP=150 Psi / DOWS=12000'
PEthp(w/o DHS)
PDHSep

9000

8500

8000

7500
Pressure(Psi)

7000

6500

6000

5500

5000
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
PEthp=PDHSep Inlet DOWS Watercut(%)
BHFPfm
PEthp(w/o DHS) Fig. 3- PEthp=PDHSep / Q=10000 BPD / THP= 150 Psi / DOWS=12000'
Pr
8 S. SUAREZ AND A. ABOU-SAYED SPE 57285

9000

8500

8000

7500
Pressure(Psi)

7000

6500

6000

5500

5000
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
PEthp=PDHSep Inlet DOWS Watercut(%)
BHFP
Fig. 4 - Pr=6420 psi / Q= 10000 BPD / THP=150 psi? DOWS=12000'
PEthp(w/o DHS)
9 FEASIBILITY OF DOWNHOLE OIL/WATER SEPARATION AND REINJECTION IN THE GOM SPE 57285

17000

15000

13000
Pressure(Psi)

11000

9000

7000

5000
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
PEthp=PDHSep Inlet DOWS Watercut(%)
Pinj(Ini=5)
Pinj(frac) Fig. 5 - Pr=6420 psi / Q=10000 BPD / THP=150 psi/ DOWS=12000'